LexStreak
Supreme Court of India

IN RE : T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

2025 INSC 1054 · 29 August 2025
Coram: B.R. Gavai; Augustine George Masih
Acts & Sections
s.3(2) The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
Headnote
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 — s.3(2) — Forest Conservation — Modification of Directions — Protected Forest Declaration — Regularisation of Encroachments — The Supreme Court, while modifying its earlier judgment dated 22.05.2025 in the Godavarman forest matters concerning the State of Maharashtra, held that fragmented land parcels of less than 3 hectares not adjoining any forest area must still be declared protected forest, but clarified that Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (which begins with a non-obstante clause) permits the State to use such land for community/public purposes only after following the prescribed statutory procedure and fulfilling the conditions specified therein; the prayer to carve out an exception from the protected-forest declaration itself was therefore rejected. On the second prayer, the Court accepted the State's request and directed that encroachments made prior to 12th December 1996 for agriculture, kuccha/pakka houses, slums, government employee colonies, government/Zilla Parishad and private schools, and other public utilities, to the extent of 10,365.049 hectares (as recommended in the Central Empowered Committee's report), shall be saved and shall not be treated as encroachments liable to removal under the earlier direction; encroachments made after 12th December 1996 may be regularised by the State only in accordance with clauses (ii) to (vi) of paragraph 138 of the principal judgment. The application was accordingly disposed of with the judgment modified only to this limited extent.
Read this judgment in LexStreak
Daily curated SC & Madras HC headnotes, reading streaks and a Bar leaderboard — built for Indian advocates.
Open the app — it's free
Full Judgment

1. The State of Maharashtra has filed the present application with the following prayers:- "(i) It is most respectfully prayed that the judgment and final order dated 22.05.2025 may kindly be modified as follows:- (a) That the Direction in para 138(vii) may kindly be modified to the extent that 'Fragmented Land Parcels' instead of being declared as protected forest each having an area of less than 3 hectares and not adjoining any forest area may be used for the purposes referred to in Section 3(2) in Forests Rights Act, 2006 or other public uses required by the concerned village, Goathan etc. (b) That the Direction in para 138(x) may be modified to the extent that the encroachments which are in use for the purposes of agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, govt. employee colonies, govt. or z.P. Schools, private schools to the extent of 10365.049 hectares may kindly be saved in the manner provided under para 138(ii) of the present judgment. (ii) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Insofar as prayer clause (i)(a) is concerned, we are not inclined to entertain the same. However, it is clear from sub- section (2) of Section 3 of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') that the provisions therein begin with a non obstante clause.

3. If the State desires to use any of the fragmented land parcels, which we have directed to be declared as protected forest, the State can always take recourse to the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act.

4. We are therefore not inclined to accept the prayer clause (i) (a) and reject the same.

5. Accordingly, with respect to the direction in para 138(vii) of the judgment and order dated 22ⁿd May 2025 is concerned, we direct that all such fragmented land parcels shall be declared as protected forest. We, however, clarify that if the State desires to use the said land for any of the purposes mentioned under sub- Section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, the same can be done only after following the procedure prescribed therein and subject to fulfillment of the conditions specified therein.

6. Insofar as prayer clause (i)(b) is concerned, a perusal of the judgment and order dated 22d May 2025 would reveal that one of the main reasons why we were inclined to grant a one time exemption was that over the years and on account of apathy of revenue officials, the necessary revenue entries could not be made. For a long period of time, the land under consideration has been used for the purpose of agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, Govt. employees colonies, Govt. or z.P. Schools, private schools and other public utilities.

7. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) in its report itself had recommended the protection of such structures to the extent of 10,365.049 hectares.

8. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow prayer clause (i)(b).

9. Accordingly, we direct that after clause (x) in paragraph 138 of the Judgment and order dated 22d May 2025 passed in I.A. No.12465/2019 etc. in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 the following paragraph is treated to to be added as paragraph (x-a). "(x-a) We, however, clarify that the directions made in paragraph (x) would not be applicable to the encroachments made prior to 12th December 1996 for the purposes of agriculture, kuccha houses, pakka houses, slums, govt. employees colonies, govt. or z.P. Schools, private schools and other public utilities to the extent of 10365.049 hectares, as has been observed in the report of the CEC. Insofar as any encroachment which has been made after 12th December 1996, if the State Government desires to regularize the same, the same shall be done only in accordance with the provisions of clauses (ii) to (vi) of paragraph 138 of this judgment."

10. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. NEW DELHI; AUGUST 25, 2025 ...CJI ( B.R. GAVAI ) .J ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )

Source: Supreme Court of India. Text reproduced for open access to public legal records. Privacy